Is Literary Translation Possible?

Thanks to a comment Rich Rhodes left on a
Doug Chaplin post, I found myself clicking through
to an insightful piece he wrote in April of this year.

In this post, I will butter Rich up by
counting the ways in which I find his reflections of help to translators and to
Bible translators in particular. I will then throw him in the oven and roast
him by taking issue with his basic thesis.

Rich claims that literary translation is impossible,
and enlists José Ortega y Gasset to make his point. He also claims that
translation between living languages today invariably makes use of dynamic
equivalence translation technique, whereas Bible translators, Neanderthals that
they are, insist on making use of discredited literal and literary translation techniques.
In response, I will make a case for carefully annotated literary translations à
la Robert Alter.

A most excellent thing about Rich Rhodes
is that he writes in completely understandable prose. This is not a minor
detail. There are days when I think: life is short; why even bother engaging
people who can’t write crisply and clearly? But even on days when I think like
that, I would still read Rich with pleasure.

Rich is right on when he says: “We do need
to talk about the difference between the lies of literal translations and the
lies of dynamic equivalent translations. All translations lie (since I’ve
gotten us stuck with that metaphor).” He also chooses a great example in his Better
Bibles post: how to translate Ἰουδαῖοι in John 7:11, 13. I believe he is
entirely correct, whatever J. I. Packer might think (which I can’t quite figure
out from Rich’s references), when he points out that in these instances, the
term refers, in the concrete, to “Jewish leaders.”

In a translation free of annotation, it
would be wise to translate as Rich suggests. In a literary translation of the
kind José Ortega y Gasset desired – and which I desire, it would be important,
on the contrary, to translate “Jews,” and add a footnote to the following
effect: ‘Jews’ refers, in the concrete, to Jewish leaders. The usage is not
unlike that someone from Wales or Northern Ireland might make of the term ‘the British’; that is, the term has negative
connotations and refers in context to others even though the speaker herself
may in fact be British.

Why maintain ‘Jews’ in translation? Because
it preserves a particularity of the original, to wit: a prima facie inclusive
term is used in a restrictive sense. The usage is a reflection of the fierce intramural
debate that was occurring among ‘Jews’ of different persuasions at the time the
gospel of John was written. Insofar as the gospel testifies to the expulsion of
Jews who understood Jesus to be such things as son of God, Messiah, and God-in-the-flesh
from mainstream synagogue life, the debate was clearly moving to a definitive
parting of the ways. That explains the use in context of ‘the Jews’ in John 7:11,
13.

The usage is burdened with some very heavy
baggage. That’s precisely the point: a dynamic translation like ‘Jewish leaders’
hides this fact. To remove the baggage from the sight of a reader of the gospel
in translation involves a mutilation. I can see why it might be done in a
popular translation. But it should be obvious that a translation which retains
the baggage of the original performs a service to anyone interested in more
fully grasping the nuances of the original.

José Ortega y Gasset is more helpful here
than Rich wishes to acknowledge. For Ortega, literary translation is no more
possible / impossible than dynamic equivalent style translation (to the extent
that they differ; it’s important not to play them off against each other completely).
As Rich knows, Ortega was far from arguing for the point he wishes to make.

Ortega identifies two inevitable facets of
translation, the “misery” and the “splendor” of which all translation partakes.
Here is a fine summary of Ortega’s analysis by David R. Knechtges – I have copy-edited
here and there:

In 1937 the Spanish philosopher José
Ortega y Gasset published in the Argentine newspaper La Nación an
article entitled “ La miseria y el esplendor de la traducción” (The Misery and
Splendor of Translation). In this article Ortega y Gasset identifies
two important facets of translation. One he calls “misery,” the other “splendor.”
The “misery of translation” stems from the pessimistic proposition that except
for scientific works, which basically are written in their own special
language, it is impossible to translate from one language to another. The
reason for this miserable state of affairs is that there is a vast linguistic
and cultural gulf that separates different languages. “Languages separate us
and discommunicate, not simply because they are different languages, but
because they proceed from different mental pictures from disparate intellectual
systems — in the last instance, from divergent philosophies.” Despite this ostensibly pessimistic view
of translation, Ortega y Gasset is actually optimistic, for he sees in the
process of translation a redeeming quality that he calls the “splendor of
translation.” To him, a translation is not a “magic manipulation” from one
language to another, or even a “duplicate of the original text,” but rather is
one that draws attention to the cultural and linguistic differences in order to
“force the reader from his linguistic habits and oblige him to move within
those of the author.” Thus, a good translation is one that
allows the reader to undertake a metaphorical “voyage to the foreign, to the
absolutely foreign, which another very remote time and another very different
civilization comprise.” This enhanced “historical consciousness”
has the beneficial result — or in Ortega y Gasset's words, the “splendor” — of
introducing new perspectives that may challenge conventional beliefs.

Sorry, Rich, but I’m with Ortega all the
way.

It’s fine to emphasize, with someone like Lawrence
Venuti, that translation is an ethnocentric act of violence which domesticates
a foreign text and conceals itself ‘by producing the effect of transparency,’ which
is, however, an ‘illusion.’ Your ‘All translations lie’ makes the same point.

But when all is said and done, it is wiser
– as does María Teresa Sánchez in this fine piece - to place the discussion in a wider
context, beyond the overheated language that characterizes the discussion
today. Translation, like all art, is a lie. But, as Picasso put it, it is also,
if it is any good at all, a lie that tells the truth.

The truth, furthermore, needs to meet us as
a stranger. Its power to transform the familiar in our lives depends on its otherness
coming through. An excellent literary translation accomplishes that. An
excellent dynamic translation, in my experience, does not.

A literary translation, in order to be
understood, will push the reader beyond the limits of his or her already
acquired knowledge. It may have to be read and reread, perhaps with the aid of
explanatory notes. A dynamic translation aims to be instantly comprehensible.
Fine. But make no mistake: with fast food, you get what you pay for.

Whenever a text is translated by a person, there will always be a certain level of subjectivity. As translators, we always debate between remaining truthful to the source text and adapting culturally so that the original can be understood by the target audience. Perfection will never be attained as long as there is a human filter, but the results will always be far more authentic than using automated translation software, which eliminates subjectivity but produces results that do not make any sense.

Actually Rich wrote his post which you link to in April of last year, 2006. But the quotation is from his comment on Doug's post.

There is a fundamental way in which I think you and Rich are talking past each other. You write "Why maintain ‘Jews’ in translation?" as if the issue is whether an existing translation should be revised. There are indeed issues about how far a new translation should depart from a long standing translation tradition. But that is not Rich's point. Rather, he is asking whether this wording was ever properly justified, or was based on a misunderstanding of the subtleties of the Greek.

I commented elsewhere that I can understand Iyov preferring literary translation because he is coming at the Bible with a totally different perspective from mine. Similarly I suppose Ortega y Gasset. But I would expect you, as a more or less evangelical Christian, to have the same kind of perspective as me, namely that the purpose of reading the Bible is not to enjoy historical literature but to understand the inspired message which God has given to humanity. OK, that's a bit of an oversimplification. But if it is important to understand the message, we simply have no time for "allow[ing] the reader to undertake a metaphorical “voyage to the foreign, to the absolutely foreign, which another very remote time and another very different civilization comprise.”"

Yes, maybe by domesticating the Bible in translation we are telling "a lie that tells the truth". I could argue that the New Testament authors' use of the Old Testament justifies this approach. I believe that we not only should but are obliged to do this if we are to bring the gospel message to a lost and dying world.

The truth, furthermore, needs to meet us as a stranger. Its power to transform the familiar in our lives depends on its otherness coming through.

I'm sorry, I cannot disagree more. Well, I guess this might work with a small minority of intellectuals trained to read and understand what is strange. But for the great majority of readers the strange simply leaves them with lots of question marks, or else walking away from the texts.

I'm all in favor of making Scripture comprehensible, but I'm not in favor of domesticating it. God's wisdom will always be foolish and scandalous in the eyes of the world. We can't save the world by minimizing the skandalon of God's word; I think you run that risk at times. But of course, we all do.

I don't want to downplay indigestible teaching of scripture, in translation or in subsequent interpretation. As it was for Ezekiel and St John the Divine, the word of God should sour your stomach before its taste becomes sweet as honey.

God's work, Isaiah says, is strange and alien to us. I'm not against the thought of someone like Helen Steiner Rice ("My God is no stranger"). But I think there is much more to being a believer than having good friends with which to have tea.

Offline I've been going back and forth with Rich Rhodes. Like Iyov, he believes a translation should be faithful to the style of the original. If the original is a literary text, a dynamic equivalent translation (done properly) should be literary in nature.

If I were choosing a translation for a new Christian, or an inquirer, I might very well choose a dynamic equivalence translation. But I always think it's a shame when people stay there forever. Let them confront the "oddness" of the biblical texts, as Brueggemann would put it.

I love your John 7:11,13 example:

"The usage [of Ἰουδαῖοι] is burdened with some very heavy baggage. That’s precisely the point: a dynamic translation like 'Jewish leaders' hides this fact."

Yes! Certainly mature Christians should be capable of tackling the language actually used by the biblical authors!

I guess part of where we differ, John, comes from differences in the demands of NT translation and OT translation. Most of the NT is mundane language. Most of the OT is real literature (except maybe for the historical books). And, before you accuse me of being knee-jerk anti-literary (rather than just realistically pessimistic which is how I read Ortega), you should read my post from last January about nostalgia.

But the NT is mixed in register, even if its style is predominantly mundane. An example: some NT authors use Septuagintalisms for effect. Another: though I've never really caught on to the structure of his argumentation (it's outside of my depth), it is said that Paul works within an identifiable rhetorical tradition. A competent DE translation would make the structure of Paul's argumentation as transparent to us as it was for his first readers. I continue to wait for such a translation.

Why the style of the synoptics is mundane was explored by Erich Auerbach (and we shouldn't forget Norden) in his masterful essay, "Fortunata."

You will see, if you look at my translation work, that I try to avoid the churchy language many of us treasure. Like you, I feel it sometimes obscures the source text's actual nuances.

If the original is a literary text, a dynamic equivalent translation (done properly) should be literary in nature.

Do you agree?

I agree with the argument, but not with the premise as applied to the Bible. See also my comment on your next post. I note that in your latest comment you at least recognise that there is a point here which needs to be argued rather than assumed.

As for the rest of this, I am working on a post on it for Better Bibles Blog.

I'm glad, Peter, that you are going to write further on this. Here is a Ben Witherington quote from his blog to sink your teeth into:

Most of the letters of the NT, with the exception of the very shortest ones (2-3 John, perhaps Philemon) look very little like the very mundane pragmatic epistolary literature of that era. In terms of both structure and content, most NT documents look far more like rhetorical speeches. Some are in fact straightforward sermons, ‘words of exhortation’ as the author of Hebrews calls his homily, some are more rhetorical speeches suitable for assemblies where discussion would then ensue (e.g. after dinner discussions at a symposium), but all are profitably analyzed in detail by means of rhetorical examination. Not only so, but micro-rhetoric clearly enough shapes: 1) the chreia in the Gospel; 2) the speech summaries in Acts; 3) the way portions of a book like Revelation is linked together by catchword and A,B,A structure (see Bruce Longenecker) as well. In other words, rhetoric is not just something that illuminates Paul and other portions of the ‘so-called epistolary corpus’ in the NT. It is a necessary tool for analyzing it all.

My point: a dynamic equivalent translation (done properly) of the NT should be no less accomplished, rhetorically speaking, than the source texts it renders.

a dynamic equivalent translation (done properly) of the NT should be no less accomplished, rhetorically speaking, than the source texts it renders.

I agree - but also no more so! In terms of the NT not being in literary style, I was thinking more in terms of language than of rhetorical structure. Nevertheless, the NT does not attempt (unlike much contemporary literature) to emulate the high literary style of classical Greece, so we should not try to emulate high literary style in our translations.

I have been going through the studies at your web site, and I am deeply inspired with all of the teachings and studies thereon like Bible studies and other teaching materials on our Web site. This is such a wonderful studies you have arranged for all the nations, in the long run of your service for the nations of the all the world.
I am from Islamic Republic of Pakistan where it is difficult to have Radio and TV channel for preaching purposes. They would not allow us to do that here; the Satan has real strong hold over everything. I often say that we are living in the land of the enemy.

Friend, I humbly request you to expand your outreach your program in Urdu and Punjabi language. Urdu is the language spoken and understood by more than one sixth of the total population of the world. Urdu is spoken in Pakistan, India, Nepal, Afghanistan and also in Indonesia, Malaysia, Iran and others.

I would ask you to pray and share it among the brethren. I would offer my services for being translator, recorder and distribution/sales. I pray that your consideration will have His mark over your decision.

I think it is important for people to learn how to read the Bible in its best literal translation possible, but it can be difficult for those just starting to read the Bible. I would have to agree with Stephen that it is easier to start with a dynamic equivalence translation, but after people get to understand the Bible more they should move on to a more literal translation and read the Bible as it was meant to be read.

Unfortunately, with all the translations there are always discrepancies. The only real way to read the Bible and get the correct translation is to learn the languages of the Bible and translate it for yourself.

Believing is KnowingComments on things like prophecy, predestination, and reward and punishment from an orthodox Jewish perspective, by David Guttmann

Ben Byerly's Blogthoughts on the Bible, Africa, Kenya, aid, and social justice, by Ben Byerly, a PhD candidate at Africa International University (AIU), in Nairobi, Kenya working on “The Hopes of Israel and the Ends of Acts” (Luke’s narrative defense of Paul to Diaspora Judeans in Acts 16-20)

C. OrthodoxyChristian, Contemporary, Conscientious… or Just Confused, by Ken Brown, a very thoughtful blog (archive). Ken is currently a Dr. Theol. student at Georg-August-Universität in Göttingen, part of The Sofja-Kovalevskaja Research Group studying early Jewish Monotheism. His dissertation will focus on the presentation of God in Job.

Catholic Biblesa thoughtful blog about Bible translations by Timothy, who has a degree in sacred theology from the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas in Rome (Angelicum) and teaches theology in a Catholic high school in Michigan

Chrisendomirreverent blog with a focus on the New Testament, by Chris Tilling, New Testament Tutor for St Mellitus College and St Paul's Theological Centre, London

Claude Mariottinia perspective on the Old Testament and current events by a professor of Old Testament at Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, Chicagoland, Illinois

Codex: Biblical Studies Blogspotby Tyler Williams, a scholar of the Hebrew Bible and cognate literature, now Assistant Professor of Theology at The King's University College in Edmonton, Alberta (archive)

Colours of Scripturereflections on theology, philosophy, and literature, by Benjamin Smith, afflicted with scriptural synaesthesia, and located in London, England

ComplegalitarianA team blog that discusses right ways and wrong ways Scripture might help in the social construction of gender (old archive only; more recent archive, unfortunately, no longer publicly available)

Connected Christianitya place to explore what it might be like if Christians finally got the head, heart, and hands of their faith re-connected (archive)

Conversational TheologySmart and delightful comment by Ros Clarke, a Ph.D. student at the University of the Highlands and Islands, at the (virtual) Highland Theological College (archive)

Daily HebrewFor students of biblical Hebrew and the ancient Near East, by Chip Hardy, a doctoral student at the University of Chicago

Daniel O. McClellana fine blog by the same, who is pursuing a master of arts degree in biblical studies at Trinity Western University just outside of Vancouver, BC.

Davar AkherLooking for alternative explanations: comments on things Jewish and beyond, by Simon Holloway, a PhD student in Classical Hebrew and Biblical Studies at The University of Sydney, Australia

Evedyahuexcellent comment by Cristian Rata, Lecturer in Old Testament of Torch Trinity Graduate School of Theology, Seoul, Korea

Exegetica Digitadiscussion of Logos high-end syntax and discourse tools – running searches, providing the downloads (search files) and talking about what can be done and why it might matter for exegesis, by Mike Heiser

Law, Prophets, and Writingsthoughtful blogging by William R. (Rusty) Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biblical and Theological Studies as College of the Ozarks and managing editor for Journal for the Evangelical Study of the Old Testament

Lingamishdelightful fare by David Ker, Bible translator, who also lingalilngas.

old testament passionGreat stuff from Anthony Loke, a Methodist pastor and Old Testament lecturer in the Seminari Theoloji, Malaysia

Old Testament Pseudepigrapha BlogA weblog created for a course on the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha at the University of St. Andrews, Scotland, by James Davila (archive)

On the Main LineMississippi Fred MacDowell's musings on Hebraica and Judaica. With a name like that you can't go wrong.

p.ost an evangelical theology for the age to comeseeking to retell the biblical story in the difficult transition from the centre to the margins following the collapse of Western Christendom, by Andrew Perriman, independent New Testament scholar, currently located in Dubai

PaleoJudaicaby James Davila, professor of Early Jewish Studies at the University of St. Andrews, St Andrews, Scotland. Judaism and the Bible in the news; tidbits about ancient Judaism and its context

Serving the Wordincisive comment on the Hebrew Bible and related ancient matters, with special attention to problems of philology and linguistic anthropology, by Seth L. Sanders, Assistant Professor in the Religion Department of Trinity College, Hartford, CT

Targumanon biblical and rabbinic literature, Christian theology, gadgetry, photography, and the odd comic, by Christian Brady, associate professor of ancient Hebrew and Jewish literature and dean of the Schreyer Honors College at Penn State

The Biblia Hebraica Bloga blog about Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, the history of the Ancient Near East and the classical world, Syro-Palestinian archaeology, early Judaism, early Christianity, New Testament interpretation, English Bible translations, biblical theology, religion and culture, philosophy, science fiction, and anything else relevant to the study of the Bible, by Douglas Magnum, PhD candidate, University of the Free State, South Africa

Technorati

Terms

Ancient Hebrew Poetry is a weblog of John F. Hobbins. Opinions expressed herein do not reflect those of his
professional affiliations. Unless otherwise indicated, the contents
of Ancient Hebrew Poetry, including all text, images, and other
media, are original and licensed under a Creative
Commons License.